Public Craze - this blog is focused towards media attention and its effects on politics and everything ranging from high profile cases to military actions towards other countries.
Everyone knows about the George Zimmerman trial and all the attention surrounding it. One case that was brought up as aftermath of Mr. Zimmerman's acquittal was the case involving Marissa Alexander. Ms. Alexander was sentenced to TWENTY YEARS in prison for firing a warning shot in her home as self defense against her abusive husband. At the time of the incident Ms. Alexander had an active restraining order against her husband and a license to carry a concealed weapon. So why did she get twenty years. According to the ruling judge she endangered the lives of her two children ( even though no on was hurt in any capacity) and the judge narrowly defined what self defense meant to the jury. So she was found guilty on three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The one good outcome from the Zimmerman trial was it caste a BIGGG microscope on the discrepancies in self defense stand your ground laws in Florida. How could a woman acting in self defense against her abusive husband get twenty years in prison with no one getting hurt ????? But a man who killed an unarmed teenage boy is set free is justice really being served or is stand your ground laws being to vague interrupted in some cases and not in others WELLL...... Ms. Alexander is getting a NEW TRIAL!!!!! It is good to see some public attention being brought to a case flawed with errors here is a quote from the 1st District Court of Appeals even admitting to errors in the trial. "The 1st District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee said in Thursday's ruling that the trial judge made a "fundamental error" when he instructed the jury that Alexander was required to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt."
How many times can a judge say they made an ERROR in sentencing someone?
ehhh rarely happens right ....
Public OUTRAGE leads to judge admitting fault for wrong sentencing .....
Stacey Rambold a former teacher at Billing Senior High School was convicted of raping a 14 year-old female student, who later committed suicide before her 17 birthday. This case went to trial in Yellowstone County, Montana. What brought this case to the media was why a rapist only got a 30 day jail sentence. Once the media got a hold of these there was more public backlash than ever.
The discrepancies in sentencing criminal in the criminal justice system is more prevalent than ever. Take for example the famous Michael Vick dog fighting case. Mr. Vick was convicted of running an illegal dog fighting ring across states and was sentenced to 21 months in jail. Where as a rapist gets a lesser sentence as shown in Mr. Rambold case. Is it fair that a dogs life is valued more than a human I personally don't think so this is just one example there is plenty more.
However, reading an article on CNN ( article link below) the judge presiding over Mr. Rambald case was quoted saying "if I'd been more alert or if the state had pointed out." The judge clearly admits fault of sentencing a rapist to less than the minimum 2 year sentence. Now that the public is outraged the judge tries to correct his mistake by calling for another sentencing hearing to try and overturn his previous sentence. http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/06/us/montana-teacher-rape/index.html?iref=allsearch The prosecutors over the case have filed an appeal with the Supreme Court trying to overturn the sentence. This case is still pending keep a look out .... Youtube click of CNN Coverage - Outage over 30-day sentence for rapist
Extensive media attention on high profile cases can taint the case proceedings ?!?!?!?!?!
I think so..... any high profile case that gets extensive media cover seems to case outrage OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman to name a few but one specific case comes to mind is the Jodi Arias trial ....
Jodi Arias her name was splashed over every new station at the beginning of the year when her trial started. Here is a brief overview of who Jodi Arias is and a brief overview of the trial facts.
Jodi Arias was dating a guy name Travis Alexander around February 2007 they had a fling for a couple months but broke up at the end of the year because Mr. Alexander was no longer interested. They rekindled a psychical relationship during the beginning of 2008. On June 4, 2008 Mr. Alexanders body was found with stab wounds, a gunshot wound to the head and defensive wounds ; his death was ruled a homicide.
Jodi Arias was charged with first degree murder after DNA resulted concluded Ms. Arias was at the crime scene. Ms. Arias told police three different accounts of what happened the night Mr. Alexander was murdered. First was the story that she was not with Mr. Alexander the day he was murdered. Next story was he was killed by two intruders and they killed him but not her. Lastly she admitted to killing him but claimed it was self defense because he was abusive. During the trial Ms. Arias was plastered as the crazy ex girlfriend that stabbed her then boyfriend 27 times and shot him in the face. Ms. Arias was convicted of first degree murder.
Nancy Grace covered this trial extensively throughout the proceedings. The trial became a media sensation with all the attention on Jodi Arias as the crazy stalker ex girlfriend that murdered her ex boyfriend. The jury failed to come to a decision on the sentencing phase of the trial whether Ms. Arias should spend life in jail or get the death penalty.
The media attention around Ms. Arias trial has caused her defense team to ask for a change in venue for the sentencing phase of the trial because they believe she wont get a fair chance at the current venue in Maricopa County, Arizona.
Can we say the widespread media attention has had a negative effect on the sentencing phase of the Jodi Arias trial as far as selecting another pool of jurors?
I would say yes, because all the media attention I feel like she would not get a fair chance at her life being spared because the public has already made up their mind that she should get the death penalty because she committed such a horrific crime against a human life. Its going to be hard to find jurors that have not already heard or watched the trial in Maricopa County. Her defense team is asking for a change of venue is a great move because at least she has a shot of only spending her life in prison.
Its nice to have media coverage for trial but it comes a point when its to much coverage and this case is a prime example of that. If Ms. Arias face was not over every major news station during her trial it would have been easier for her defense team during the penalty phase to get a somewhat non bias set of jurors. The sentencing phase is still ongoing so we will see what Ms. Arias punishment is
